Lord Christopher Monckton

Rebuttal to Lord Monckton: Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. His bio includes receiving a diploma in journalism from the University College, Cardiff. He performed as a policy adviser for Margaret Thatcher. He has spent a great deal of energy lately attempting to establish himself as offering 'scientific' perspectives on human caused global warming. Rebuttal to Lord Monckton's arguments: his perspectives largely contain facts out of context, non sequitur and red herring arguments, as well as straw man constructions that are anything but scientifically sound when examined in context of the relevant science.

Lord Christopher Monckton

Debunking Monckton

Lord Monckton inherited his title. The current Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is not a member of the House of Lords but he does hold a hereditary peerage and is entitled to take the title of Lord. However he is not a member of the house of Lords:

Monckton has apparently been misrepresenting himself as a member of the house of Lords.

Apparently he has chosen to risk his reputation by spreading disinformation regarding the science of global warming. His opinions aside, his perspectives on the matter can best be described as naive, ignorant, or at worst fraudulent, or some combination of the three.

As to his title 'Lord' Monckton admits: "I'm afraid I do exploit it quite shamelessly."

December, 2012

At the COP 18 meeting in Doha, Qatar Christopher Monckton inappropriate sat at the Myanmar desk and spoke. Reportedly this has caused him to be de-badged for such events.

July, 2011

A letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from the Clerk of the Parliaments

18 July 2011

Letter to Viscount Monckton of Brenchley from David Beamish, the Clerk of the Parliaments.

My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.

In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote". You later repeated, "I am a Member of the House".

I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated:

"In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to 'a member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House ... In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage."

I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member "without the right to sit or vote".

I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.

September, 2010

Scientists have responded to Moncktons testimony given in May of 2010. The result is that Moncktons claims are scientifically unsound and unsupported by the evidence. To characterize this properly in the context of Moncktons claims, here is a list of refutations addressing various points.

Monckton Assertion 2: Corals came into being during eras of high CO2, therefore high CO2 is not damaging.

"...both of Monckton’s arguments are flawed." - Dr. Jeffrey Kiehl

"It is not possible for me to make any sense of Mr. Monckton’s assertions as they are not based on any scientific data or views that have ever been published. " - Dr. John Veron

"This paragraph completely ignores the fact that the seawater chemistry and the buffering capacity of seawater were very different during the times described from what they are today" - Dr. Nancy Knowlton

"One must carefully distinguish between conditions that were acquired and sustained over millions of years such as these, and abrupt events such as fossil-fuel burning that disturb these longer-term equilibria." - Dr. Lee Kump

Monckton Assertion 3: A high CO2 concentration is beneficial.

"﻿﻿...anyone with... an elementary understanding of geochemical cycles should understand that rates of CO2 change are more important than amounts of CO2 change." - Dr. Ken Caldeira

"...when rates of change were fast, life (and the rest of the Earth system) was unable to adjust in time; climates shifted quickly, the physical and chemical environment for life changed abruptly, and life suffered." - Dr. Lee Kump

"﻿﻿Quantitative analyses and syntheses of those experiments indicate that the direct effects of elevated CO2 will increase crop yields by 13% (on average for those with the C3 photosynthetic pathway, such as wheat, soybeans, rice) or 0% (on average for those with the C4 photosynthetic pathway, such as corn, sugar cane, and sorghum); not the 40% Lord Moncton suggests." - Dr. Peter Reich

"Monckton’s discussion of the impacts of a continued rise in the level of CO2, which he limits to the possible increase in the yield of some crops, is extremely superficial." - Dr. Michael MacCracken

Monckton Assertion 4: If ocean acidification is occurring, it is not due to increasing CO2.

"Monckton’s point about the added CO2 being a small part of total carbon ... is largely irrelevant." - Dr. Ken Caldeira

"CO2 is the only possible culprit. There are not enough emissions of anything else that could cause the observed acidification." - Dr. Pieter Tans

"There is no question of “if ”. Changes in pH have already been observed in many different parts of the ocean, and the chemistry driving short-term acidification is elementary and unavoidable." - Dr. Nancy Knowlton

"The submission from Monckton concerning the interaction between atmospheric carbon dioxide and the carbonate chemistry of seawater is profoundly wrong." - Dr. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg

Monckton Assertion 5: Global temperatures have varied due to natural causes in the past and there is nothing unusual about the recent rise.

"Monckton’s premise that current concern rests on the supposedly unprecedented current temperatures is simply false." - Dr. Gavin Schmidt

"It is very likely current atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years, and that the rates of increase have been five times faster over the past 40 years than over any other comparable period the past 2,000 years." - Dr. James Hurrell

Monckton Assertion 6: The Earth is now cooling and the previous decades of warming have stopped.

"Global warming on decadal time scales is continuing without letup..." - Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Reto Ruedy

"The fact that the globally averaged surface air temperature has shown no trend or even slight cooling over the last 7 years is meaningless in regards to climate change due to increasing CO2. In addition to CO2 forced warming, the climate system also has natural variability, which is why one year’s temperature is different from the next. This natural variability also can result in the climate having short periods of cooling or no trend even with strong overall warming due to increasing CO2." - Dr. David Easterling

"...Monckton spoke of the lack of warming since 1998, but failed to mention the role of natural variability." - Dr. James Hurrell

Monckton Assertion 7: Recent decades of warming were due to global brightening, not CO2.

"Over the past century, we have observed large and coherent changes in many different aspects of the Earth’s climate. The oceans and land surface have warmed. Atmospheric moisture has increased. Glaciers have retreated over most of the globe. Sea level has risen. Snow and sea-ice extent have decreased in the Northern Hemisphere. The stratosphere has cooled, there are now reliable indications that the troposphere has warmed. The height of the tropopause has increased. Individually, all of these changes are consistent with our scientific understanding of how the climate system should be responding to anthropogenic forcing. Collectively, this behavior is inconsistent with the changes that we would expect to occur due to natural variability alone." - Dr. Benjamin Santer

"We conclude that Lord Monckton’s conclusions cannot be supported by climate physics, nor is it supported by more accurate versions of the data he used." - Dr. Bruce Wielicki

"With regard to Mr. Monckton’s use of the work of Pinker et al., (2005) he is totally misinterpreting the physics." - Dr. Norman Loeb

"Monckton has not given an appropriate description of the temperature record. ... Regarding ‘global brightening’, there is a side bar commentary on global dimming and brightening in Chapter 3 of IPCC. The station network showing these changes is confined to land and near urban areas. There is no evidence that such changes occurred over the oceans (70% of the Earth), indeed the evidence is otherwise. Again there is a tendency to cherry pick low and high points in some record that are not representative of the bigger picture. Any brightening ignores the dimming beforehand, for instance. ... There is no basis for Monckton’s Pinker claims at all." - Dr. Kevin Trenberth

Monckton Assertion 8: The temperature response to radiative forcing (i.e. climate sensitivity) is very small and was over-estimated by a factor of 4 by the IPCC.

"In addition to exposing the errors in the Lindzen-Choi work on climate sensitivity by Trenberth et al (2010) and Murphy (2010), noted by others, it is possible to obtain empirical estimates of climate sensitivity based on observed responses to various forcings. An analysis combining several of these estimates (Annan & Hargreaves 2006) shows that climate sensitivity is constrained with high probability between 2 and 4.5 oC, with the most likely value around 3 oC, in agreement with previous estimates. A value as low as that claimed by Monckton (~ 0.75 oC) has a vanishingly small probability of being correct." - Dr. James Annan

"Global average temperature has risen about 0.8 oC since preindustrial times while the CO2 concentration has risen less than 40%, so for Monckton’s value of the climate sensitivity to be correct, the further 60% rise in CO2 concentration to reach a doubling would have to have no warming effect on the climate. In addition, the 0.8 oC rise to date is not the full response to the change in atmospheric concentration because the ocean’s heat capacity spreads the response to the warming over several decades—accounting for this would increase the warming to about 1.3 oC for the 40% rise in the CO2 concentration were CO2 the only factor acting—but it is not: see my discussion in Assertion 9)." - Dr. Michael MacCracken

Monckton Assertion 9: Climate change is a non-problem. Even if the higher estimates of climate sensitivity were correct, there is no hurry to take any action.

"The urgent need to act cannot be overstated. Anthropogenic climate change is already affecting our lives and livelihoods through extreme storms, unusual floods and droughts, intense heat waves, rising seas, and many changes in biological systems. Uncertainties do remain, but they concern things like the rate of melting of major ice sheets or the specific impacts of climate change on particular regions, not the broader issue of whether the climate is changing. The biggest questions are what choices we and our children will make about energy use. Economists have analyzed the costs of various policy responses and they tell us that the most cost-effective emission trajectories involve starting now to control emissions. Further delay will be costly." - Dr. James Hurrell

"We have shown that this assumption is incorrect for carbon dioxide because of [its] longevity...future carbon dioxide emissions would imply further irreversible effects on the planet." - Dr. Susan Solomon et al.

"...his [Monckton's] argument is not only seriously in error, it is profoundly misleading and irresponsible." - Dr. Michael MacCracken

"A decision to delay action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is not a decision “to do nothing”. It is a decision to continue emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere by increasing amounts, committing the world to higher levels of global warming and more sea-level rise, with associated adverse impacts." - Dr. David Karoly

"In a lengthy letter to Congress some months ago, in which I addressed questions from Congressmen about my testimony before the global warming committee, I had already refuted in detail the points now belatedly raised again by the scientists who have written to Congress. The scientists were unaware of my letter to Congress because they did not have the good sense or courtesy to contact me - or even to contact the vast majority of the scientists whose conclusions I had cited - before circulating to friendly news media their prolix, turgid, repetitive, erroneous and inadequate response to my testimony. From their calculatedly furtive approach, it is legitimate to infer that their exercise was motivated more by politics than by science. One of the lead authors is currently under criminal investigation for alleged fabrication of results: another has been caught out in repeated lies: a third admits to suffering a mental disability: and many of the scientists whom these lead authors invited to contribute are among the long-discredited clique of Climategate emailers. Accordingly, it is unlikely that Congress will pay much attention to their political rant, which displays a lamentable absence of quantitative detail and a pathetic reliance on fashionable but questionable forecasting techniques that have long been compellingly contradicted by hard data.

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley"

MONCKTON resorts to ad hominem styled attacks by employing red herring diversions in what seems to be a desperate attempt to show his opinion is somehow superior to the scientific understanding, evidence, observations, physics and mathematics that support the scientific consensus that shows that humans are in fact influencing the climate and causing global warming.

The overall effect is simply that Monckton is further revealing that he does not have the science on his side. So he instead attacks a few scientists with said red herring accusations to distract the reader from the reality of the his inability to comprehend the science in a relevant manner.

Etymology: Middle English fraude, from Anglo-French, from Latin fraud-, fraus

Date: 14th century

1 a:deceit, trickery; specifically: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting :trick2 a: a person who is not what he or she pretends to be :impostor; also: one who defrauds :cheatb: one that is not what it seems or is represented to be

Let us, generally, examine the case in the context of what is known in the well established science and what is known about Lord Monckton's misrepresentations of that science. To do this we examine the contexts of fraud under the auspices of the general definition, and the legal definition. First let us examine the general definition as illustrated above:

Using the common definition of fraud, as illustrated above, within the scope of that limitation, under definition 1 b : "an act of deceiving or misrepresenting" Monckton can be said to be committing fraud in accordance with that sub-part of the definition, however legal proof is more strenuous than mere proof in this context. That said proof is shown in the fact that he misrepresents the science to his audience.

The fact that he takes money from those that pay him to present his misrepresentations draws him into definition 1 a, in part, "perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right". "perversion of truth" is shown in that he gets the science wrong. "in order to induce another to part with something of value" is shown assuming he receives some form of remuneration (monetary or gift) for his presentations and representations (lectures, radio and television appearances, unless of course he is donating 'all' of his time and effort).

Deprivation of legal right, or "surrender a legal right" is more challenging to prove if/when separated from the monetary 'surrendering', as part of any fiduciary agreement between payor and payee. The even trickier part is when you add the word "intentional" to the sub-part definition, but this is where it gets interesting...

The legal definition of fraud extends beyond the more simple common definition. To prove fraud requires five elements of proof including:

1. a false statement of a material fact,

2. knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue,

3. intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim,

4. justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and

5. injury to the alleged victim as a result.

In the case of Monckton vs. his audiences scientific understanding:

1. a false statement of a material fact, (easy to prove)

2. knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (leas easy to prove)

3. intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (less easy to prove)

4. justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (fairly easy to prove)

5. injury to the alleged victim as a result (less easy to prove).

In general his misrepresentations of the climate science, data, predictions, and projections can easily be characterized as inaccurate. In a best case scenario for Lord Monckton, his statements may simply be naive, though apparently steeped in incompetence in the subject matter. In a worse case scenario, his statements may be fraudulent fabrications.

In summary on the issue of fraud:

In order for Lord Monckton to prove he is not committing fraud, he essentially has to successfully demonstrate that he does not know what he is talking about. In other words, he has to prove that he is incompetent regarding the subject of climate science in relation to his public claims, assertions, and representations, when contrasted against the well established science, and the growing scientific knowledge base.

I, John P. Reisman, hereby state, that I sincerely believe that Lord Christopher Monckton (hereinafter in this paragraph, he/his), if he tries very hard, may be able to successfully prove he is completely and totally incompetent in his understanding on the subject of climate science in relation to the relevant issues at hand, that of human-caused global warming, its projected impacts to society and the global economy, projected increases in temperature, projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and the relevant costs associated with the progression of global warming. I also must admit that I may be wrong and he may not be able to prove he is completely incompetent on the subject matter at hand and may thereby lose his case.

Would Lord Monckton actually sue anyone for libel, or slander?

Probably not. He would have to weigh his revenue potential (prediction?) from a lawsuit, against his current revenue sources. Since his income is apparently largely derived from misrepresenting the science it would seem that he has little, or less, incentive to go to court to prove he is incompetent in the subject of climate science and has in fact been misrepresenting the science due to his apparently complete lack of understanding of the relevant contexts pertaining to that science.

In other words, would he be willing to trade a bird in the hand for some lawyers 'prediction' about what is in the bush? Heck he might get a judge that decides that Monckton's case is ridiculous and awards nothing based on the damage Monckton has already done. It's pretty amazing what a judge can learn in the process of a case.

But of course there is also the possibility he would lose the case. It actually may be difficult for him to prove he is completely incompetent on the subject at hand. He has publicly called a professor "silly blogger" and ridiculed the findings of the most respected scientific institutions. So he might not be able to prove he is incompetent?

1: tending to excite anger, disorder, or tumult :seditious2: tending to inflame or excite the senses

Inflammatory speeches are the hallmark of Monckton's method. Whether using facts out of context or appeals to emotion, his misrepresentation of fact and his use of 'facts out of context' are clearly visible to the discerning mind. He seems to rely on the fact that his audience does not understand the complexities of climate science so he can take advantage of their disadvantage.

It turns out that Monckton's main claim to fame contradicts his current position on global warming.

His main claim to fame seems to be having worked for Margaret Thatcher as a policy adviser. It seems he was not very good at it though, at least not in the context of global warming. Margaret Thatcher was a very vocal proponent of moving quickly and meaningfully on the challenge of our time, that being 'human-caused global warming'.

Margaret Thatcher

In 1989, as Prime Minister of Great Brittan, Margaret Thatcher was apparently the first world leader, to warn of the dangers of global warming.

1989: Margaret Thatcher on 'Global Warming'

"The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices so that we do not live at the expense of future generations".

"That prospect is a new factor in human affairs. It's comparable in its implications to the discovery of how to split the atom. Indeed its results could be even more far reaching."

"No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy with a full repairing lease."

Pre-Summary

All in all, Monckton's modus operendi seems to be that:

Monckton does not seem to understand the difference between a prediction and a projection.

He uses 'some' real data but often misrepresents the context resulting in a false impression.

In some instances, he also seems to be mixing in some false data that is not what he claims in his presentations.

He also misstates the context of the false data in relation to the real data to further confuse the reality.

So, all in all, again, he quite arrogantly misstates the current understanding of climate science on a regular basis. He is making quite a bit of money going on lecture tours and doing this, which is interesting only because denialsists, including himself have said that this is what the scientists are doing. The same lies repeated over, and over, and over, and over again.

In the end any and all delays will cost everyone more. The economic damage that is expected due to inaction will only grow as action is pushed further and further out. So he is making money and essentially robbing the public of their standard of living while representing himself through his assertions that he is saving everyone. There are many words that describe this sort of behavior. Some are listed above.

Monckton Argument Example:

Monckton shows that the ERBE data 'proves' that global warming is essentially not happening. He quotes analysis from Richard Lindzen. The problem is that the Lindzen uses outdated data and analysis. Lindzens history is already associated with special interest lobbies and their interests, in alignment, if not direct influence. Follow the money. This, combined with the facts, when examined in relevant context, gives more than enough reason to suspect Monckton's analysis, presentation, and perspective.

August 11, 2010

The House of Lords has sent a letter to Lord Monckton "stressing that he should not refer to himself as a member of the House of Lords, and nor should he use any emblem representing the portcullis."

Last month, Michael Pownall, clerk of the parliaments, wrote to Lord Monckton, a hereditary peer, stressing that he should not refer to himself as a member of the House of Lords, and nor should he use any emblem representing the portcullis.

Official logo of the House of Lords (left) and that used by Christopher Monckton (right)

A House of Lords spokeswoman said: "The emblem is property of the Queen, and Parliament has a Royal Licence granted for its use. Any misuse of the emblem by either members or non-members breaches this licence, and if a person refuses to stop using it the matter is drawn to the attention of the Lord Chamberlain, who is an Officer of the Royal Household. The Lord Chamberlain has been contacted regarding Lord Monckton's use of the emblem, and it will fall to him to follow up on any misuse of the emblem."

Monckton argued that the act, which debarred all but 92 of the 650 hereditary peers, removed the right to sit or vote in the upper house, but did not remove membership because peerages are granted by "letters patent" which are a personal gift of the monarch. Monckton claimed in the letter that "only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 act was a general law."

The House of Lords said today it strongly rejects Monckton's interpretation. A spokeswoman said: "Lord Monckton is not and never has been a member of the House of Lords. The clerk of the parliaments has written to Lord Monckton, confirming that he has no association with the House and advising him to stop branding himself as such." She said Monckton's claim that the 1999 act was a general law was "misleading".

"The 1999 act does not remove letters patent, it just ends the right to be a member of the House by virtue of the hereditary peerage. The Act is pretty clear and uses the term 'membership' not the 'right to sit/vote'," she added.

Buckingham Palace confirmed it is "aware of this matter", but said it "can not disclose any details on private correspondence between Buckingham Palace and an individual". It did, though, guide the Guardian towards a document on its website which says misuse of the emblem is prohibited by the Trade Marks Act 1994, meaning Monckton could potentially be liable for fines and a six-month prison term if the Palace pursued the matter and successfully prosecuted him.

August 7, 2010: What is he saying now?

Actually not much new. But a new article on ReaClimate examining in great detail the misrepresentations that Monckton is making illustrates clearly that Monckton's claims are not based on anything but his own cherry picked data and charts that have little to do with reality when examined in proper context. One should not that It is easy to take to pieces of data, real or not and represent them as having relevance while having actually no scientific value whatsoever. This seems to be what Lord Monckton excels at.

Atmospheric CO2 Concentration

Let's examine some of Monckton's graphs. His continual misrepresentation of data and distortion of context continues to confuse people. In the next two graphs Monckton claims that the light blue area represents the IPCC 'Predictions' for CO2 but in reality the IPCC does not make predictions, they show projections for various scenarios. Monckton 'cherry picks' the picture he likes and then misrepresents the data and context in his presentations. If it sounds confusing, that's because it is. He is confusing not only the data but those to whom he presents 'his' perspective. In other words he's confusing the science and the people he talks to.

Reality #1. The IPCC reports don’t make predictions of future atmospheric CO2 concentrations. They do show projected scenarios under various circumstances.

In the graph he identifies observed CO2 concentrations as anomalies which is incorrect. They are measured observations. One is left to guess as to why he represents 'measurements' as anomalies.

Figure 1. Graph of mean atmospheric CO2 concentrations contrasted with Monckton’s version of the IPCC’s “predicted” values over the period from 2000-2100. Source Feb. 2009 edition of Lord Monckton’s “Monthly CO2 Report.”

Monckton's Mistakes in His Graph

Incorrectly identifies CO2 measurements as anomalies.

Incorrectly 'predicts' that CO2 rise will be linear.

Incorrectly 'predicts' that there is no natural CO2 feedback mechanism.

Incorrectly ignores projected increases in multiple scenarios as illustrated by the IPCC.

Note: Monckton accuses the IPCC of predicting when they are projecting and here he commits the same sin by predicting CO2 rise, rather than projecting.

Figure 2. Graph of mean atmospheric CO2 concentrations contrasted with Monckton’s version of the IPCC’s “predicted (projected)” values over the period from Jan. 2000 through Jan. 2009.Source Feb. 2009 edition of Lord Monckton’s “Monthly CO2 Report.”

Monckton's Mistakes in His Graph

Incorrectly identifies CO2 measurements as anomalies.

Incorrectly uses too short a time scale of CO2 measurements.

Incorrectly cherry-picked a long-term emission scenario (A2) and contrasted it to the short-term cherry-picked data.

Incorrectly 'predicts' that there is no natural CO2 feedback mechanism.

Note: Monckton accuses the IPCC of 'predicting' when they are 'projecting' and here he commits the same sin by predicting CO2 rise, rather than projecting.

Figure 3. Plot of atmospheric CO2 concentrations projected from 2000-2100 for the A2 emissions scenario, after the emissions were run through an ensemble of Carbon Cycle models. The red lines indicate model output, whereas the black line represents the “representative” response that the IPCC used as input into its ensemble of climate models (AOGCMs). Taken from Fig. 10.20a of IPCC AR4 WG1.

In the figure below you can see the IPCC results in black from the A2 scenario and Monckton's results in red. He clearly is not showing the IPCC results so his claims that he is showing the IPCC 'predictions', which are actually only projections, is false, and is further confused by his dishonest representation of the material and contexts.

Figure 4. Here the black lines represent the actual A2 input to the IPCC climate models (solid) and the upper and lower bounds of the projected CO2 concentrations obtained by running the A2 emissions scenario through an ensemble of Carbon Cycle models. This data was digitized from the graph in Fig. 3, but a table of model input concentrations of CO2 resulting from the different emissions scenarios can be found here. The red lines represent Monckton’s version of the IPCC’s “predicted” CO2 concentrations. The solid red line is his “central tendency”, while the dotted lines are his upper and lower bounds. Monckton’s data was digitized from the graph in Fig. 1.

Monckton's Mistakes Illustrated

Monckton has apprently 'not' used the IPCC Model inputs while claiming that he did.

Figure 5. This is a blow-up of the graph in Fig. 4 for the years 2000-2010. Bickmore added the annual global mean atmospheric CO2 concentrations (blue line), obtained from NOAA.

Monckton's Mistakes Illustrated

Monckton has apprently 'not' used the IPCC Model inputs while claiming that he did.

Monckton incorrectly used too short a data representation of CO2 in contrast to his claims of future atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Monckton has clearly misrepresented what he calls the 'Central Estimate' of the IPCC report.

Fantasy #2. Monckton claims that “for seven years, CO2 concentration has been rising in a straight line towards just 575 ppmv by 2100. This alone halves the IPCC’s temperature projections. Since 1980 temperature has risen at only 2.5 °F (1.5 °C) per century." In other words, he fit a straight line to the 2002-2009 data and extrapolated to the year 2100, at which time the trend predicts a CO2 concentration of 575 ppm. (See the light blue line in Fig. 1.)

Reality #2. Monckton has chosen to short a time period of measurement and does not include climate feedback mechanisms. Climate is not a linear process, it is non linear. It is a gross oversimplification to say climate works in a straight line as Monckton infers. It is impossible to distinguish a linear trend from an exponential trend like the one used for the A2 model input over such a short time period.

Temperature Projections

Monckton again cherry picks his data and represents it out of context. In figure 6 below he attempts to mislead his audience by showing a short time period (natural variation) in contrast with a 'cherry picked' projection (see above re prediction vs. potential projection).

Figure 6. Lord Monckton’s plot of global temperature anomalies over the period January 2002 to January 2009. The red line is a linear trend line Monckton fit to the data, and the pink/white field represents his Fantasy IPCC temperature predictions. I have no idea what his base period is. Taken from the Feb. 2009 edition of Lord Monckton’s “Monthly CO2 Report.”.

Note: Monckton's claim that "The observed cooling trend is equivalent to 2C/century" is extraordinary. The natural cycle and orbital forcings indicate that without anthropogenic forcing we 'might' begin to enter the next ice age in 20,000 years. To claim and/or infer that we will enter an ice age based on his cherry-picked short-term data (natural variation) is truly amazing.

Further Note: Monckton is his typical cherry picking fashion has moved his goal posts again to his advantage. If you scroll down this page you will see a similar graph to the one above. But the start point of the IPCC ramp has moved and he moved the beginning of the temp from the beginning of 2002 toward the end of 2002. He also changed his prediction of "The observed cooling trend" form 1C per century to 2C per century. That is 'Moncktonized Science'. you simply cherry pick the data that most favors your own desired outcome. What he should do if he really wants to show some cooling is limit his cherry pick to 2007. That way, according to his data, he can show that the earth will cool 60º C/century. As Lord Monckton has said: "Now, if we’re going to exaggerate, let’s exaggerate properly."

Incorrectly predicts that we will enter in an ice age within 200 years.

FANTASY #3. Lord Monckton uses graphs like that in Fig. 6 to support his claim that the climate models (AOGCMs) the IPCC uses to project future temperatures are wildly inaccurate.

REALITY #3. Monckton didn’t actually get his Fantasy IPCC predictions of temperature evolution from AOGCM runs. Instead, he inappropriately fed his Fantasy IPCC predictions of CO2 concentration into equations meant to describe the EQUILIBRIUM model response to different CO2 concentrations.

This, of course, is also another great example of how Monckton uses facts out of context. By comparing his short-term cherry-picked temperature graph against the model for equilibrium response he is actually illustrating the difference between long-term response and short-term natural variation.

This is not scientifically interesting because it is an irrelevant contrast. He uses this to misrepresent the science but it is scientifically dishonest as a representation. Simply put he is using facts our of context. Apparently, according to Monckton, he admits using these facts out of context and apparently thinks that is an appropriate use of the data?

Let us be reminded, his education was in journalism, not science. He may be good with word crafting, but he certainly does not understand climate science.

Bickmore Concludes:

"I have shown here that in order to discredit the IPCC, Lord Monckton produced his graphs of atmospheric CO2 concentration and global mean temperature anomaly in the following manner:

He confused a hypothetical scenario with a prediction.

He falsely reported the data from the hypothetical scenario he was confusing with a prediction.

He plugged his false data into the wrong equation to obtain false predictions of time-series temperature evolution.

He messed up the statistical analyses of the real data.

These errors compound into a rather stunning display of complete incompetence. But since all, or at least nearly all, of this has been pointed out to Monckton in the past, there’s just no scientifically valid excuse for this. He’s just making it up."

RealClimate Followup - Monckton in the thread

Monckton had the audacity to accuse Gavin of ad hominem response to his pusillanimous, parsimonious sophist innuendo and accusations directed at Gavin. You can review Moncktons comments:

He paints himself kindly and scientific in the debate of course, and as he clearly stated his title in his post to make sure everyone knows that he is Lord.

"Monckton of Brenchley (a Lord, whether you like it or not)"

Monckton: Tone it down, Gavin. Go through your blog and remove every yah-boo you have perpetrated, and see how much more authoritative it will begin to look. At present, the difference between us is this. You are taken seriously only by climate-extremists who share your own narrow and politicized viewpoint. Those of us who have none of your financial or political interests in this question and are merely trying to find out whether and to what extent there really is a “climate crisis” are taken seriously by everyone except the climate extremists, who are increasingly ignored precisely because they will not engage in calm, rational, and above all scientific argument. It’s your call.

[Response: For anyone who would like to look up Monckton's idea of a calm rational argument, I would direct them here. Please carry on. - gavin]

So Monckton, in RealClimate, says Gavin should tone it down or people won't take him seriously? But in his speech that he delivered at Heartland Institute he did not seem to follow his own advice?

Publication date: 03/12/2009

Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Lord Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, delivered the closing keynote address at the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, praising those in attendance for holding fast to their scientific ethics and speaking truth to power.

Where are they all today, those bed-wetting moaning Minnies of the Apocalyptic Traffic-Light Tendency--those Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds?

The main message of this conference to the bed-wetters is this. Stop telling lies. You are fooling fewer and fewer of us. However many lies are uttered, the scientific truth remains unalterable.

The Forces of Darkness, with their “global warming” chimera, came perilously close to ending the Age of Enlightenment and Reason. They almost ushered in a new Dark Age. Yet they have failed. Why? They have failed because you, here, have had the courage to face them down, to confront their falsehoods, and to nail their lies.

The Age of Light and Reason shall not die. Dylan Thomas wrote, “Do not go gentle to that last goodnight: Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” You have not raged in vain. The world is not cooking: It is cooling. Every opinion poll--even those conducted by the bed-wetters themselves--shows that global public opinion is cooling as fast as the global climate.

In one recent survey, “global warming” came at the very bottom of a list of political and environmental concerns, immediately behind the need to clean up dog-poop on the streets. Why? Because dog-poop is a real environmental problem. “Global warming” is not. The correct policy response to the non-problem of climate change is to have the courage to do nothing.

We, the people, are no longer afraid of “global warming.” We are fed up to the back teeth of hearing about it. We are bored by it. And the bed-wetters know it. Their ever-more-outlandish predictions are a measure of their blind panic. The Dr. Strangelove of NASA, in the latest of a series of ever-more-desperate attempts to flog the dead horse of climatic apocalypse, recently wrote that sea level is about to rise by 246 feet, “und anyvun zat disagrees viz me vill be arrested und put on trial for high crimes against humanidy und nature.”

When Hansen’s political ally and financial beneficiary Al Gore had only predicted one-twelfth that amount of imminent sea-level rise, Mr. Justice Burton said in the London High Court, “The Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view.” But then, Al Gore knew that all along. In 2005, the year he said sea level would imminently rise by 20 feet, he bought a $4 million condo in the St. Regis tower, San Francisco--just feet from the ocean at Fisherman’s Wharf. The only danger to sea level is from all those bed-wetters.

Now, if we’re going to exaggerate, let’s exaggerate properly. Sea level is going to rise not by Gore’s 20 feet, not by Hansen’s 246 feet, but by 2,640 feet. Half a mile. You heard it here first. There goes Andy Revkin of The New York Times, dashing to the telephone to tell them to hold the front page.

All lands not submerged beneath the inexorably rising waves will bake and wither under permanent year-‘round drought. Yea, and the very same lands will smother and drown under permanent year-‘round floods. And plagues of locusts. And pestilences. And famines. And brimstone and fire. And boils and pustules, yea, verily, and other things that pullulate and fester and sound nasty enough to get big headlines and bigger research grants. (I see now why these bed-wetters exaggerate on such an outrageous scale. It’s a lot of fun.)

Dr. Strangelove has published a peer-reviewed paper--so it must be true--saying 60 percent of all species will soon be flung into extinction. It won’t be 60 percent. It will be 326 percent. Whaddaya mean, we can’t extinguish more than 100 percent? You heard the U.S. President. Yes We Can. How do we know we can? Because the IPCC says.

“Because the IPCC says.” That pathetic phrase is nothing less than an instrument of political abdication on the part of our democratically elected leaders. There was once an androgynous crooner who called himself “The Artist Formerly Known As Prince.” In Britain, Her Majesty’s Opposition, “The Party Formerly Known As Conservative,” has stated, in the person of its chief of policy: “We cannot question what the scientists say.” Yes we can.

When the Founding Fathers of this great nation met in that hot summer long ago in the City of Brotherly Love to craft the noble Constitution of the United States, they were building their great nation upon the solid foundation of your Declaration of Independence. Independence! This winter, if the United States signs up to the Treaty of Copenhagen, her independence--and our freedom--will be gone forever. If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would be turning in his grave.

Last year the President of the Czech Republic told this Conference, “It’s not about climatology--it’s about freedom.” This year the President of the European Union told us the same. Two statesmen with one message.

Let me ask you this question--and it is not a rhetorical question, I want to hear your answer loud and clear. Do we want to be governed not by representatives whom we elect and hold to account, but by the technocratic-centralist wannabe-world-government of the IPCC?

Do we want to pay a single red cent more of our taxes to fund the “global warming” boondoggle?

Are we terrified by the spectre of sea level rising 246 feet?

Do we expect sea level to rise this century by more than about 1 foot?

Do we want to see the bed-wetting liars, hucksters, shysters, fraudsters, and racketeers ever-more-extravagantly rewarded with honors and prizes for their ever-more-extravagant falsehoods, fables, and fictions?

Do we want cap-‘n’-trade?

Do we need carbon taxes?

Do we want to let Joe Bast get away with not organizing another Heartland Conference next year?

You, in this room, have bravely upheld the truth and the scientific method against all manner of lies, threats, sanctions, personal attacks, and entertaining revisions to your CreepyMedia biographies. Because you have not failed or faltered, the Forces of Darkness are now scuttling back into their lairs, there to snivel in the eternal darkness of utter oblivion and CNN.

Divine Providence, unlike the bed-wetters, has a sense of humour. Governor Schwarzenegger--now, there’s an oxymoron for you, or “moron” for short. As soon as Governor Schwarzenegger announced that the science was settled--and how the hell would he know?--two-thirds of California’s citrus crop was destroyed. Were all those oranges and lemons wiped out by drought? Or by forest fires? No, by an exceptionally bitter frost.

Last summer, just as the President of the Royal Society, the world’s oldest taxpayer-funded pressure-group, was telling us, “Global warming is happening now,” global temperatures had already been plunging for nearly seven years, at a rate equivalent to almost 4 Fahrenheit degrees per century. Has your favourite news medium reported that? Probably not. Maybe that’s why the President of the Royal Society didn’t know. He doesn’t get his science from the learned journals. He gets it from the media.

Just as Tony Bliar was announcing on his blog that “global warming is getting worse,” just as Al Gore was testifying before the Senate--during an ice-storm--that we face a “climate crisis,” global temperatures plummeted still more. They have been plummeting at a rate equivalent to 11 Fahrenheit degrees per century throughout the four years since Gore launched his mawkish, sci-fi comedy horror B-movie. At this rate, by mid-century we shall roasting in a new Ice Age.

Gore no longer dares to publish his supposed “evidence” for “climate crisis,” because he is rightly terrified that we here will pounce on it at once and demonstrate that it is materially, serially, seriously inaccurate--demonstrate its falsity by the dull, outmoded method of reference to the facts, the science, and the data.

When Gore appeared before the Senate a few weeks ago, the hearing was supposed to be public. For it is one of the most ancient and settled principles of parliamentary democracy that the deliberations of those whom we elect, and the testimony that their committees hear, shall be open and visible to all. Yet, with the furtive connivance of Senator Boxer and her politicized snivel servants, the science slides Gore showed to the Senators were kept secret. I and others have asked for them. They are “not available at this time.” And the Senate is “exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.”

Why are those slides “not available at this time”? Because Gore is running scared. Rightly scared. Scared of prosecution for peddling a false prospectus in Generation Investment Management. Neither Gore nor any bed-wetter will any longer dare to debate the science of climate with us or anyone in the light of day. Gore’s speaking contract stipulates that he will not debate, he will not answer unscripted questions, and he will not be interviewed except by journalists acceptable to him. Which journalists are they? The dim ones that don’t know any science, and the prejudiced ones that don’t care. Just about all of them.

Recently four of us in this room were invited to a meeting of Government and opposition leaders and policymakers in Madrid, to debate the science and economics of climate against Al Gore (not a climate scientist); Railroad Engineer Pachauri, the head of the U.N.’s climate science working group (not a climate scientist); Sir Nicholas Stern, the author of the U.K. Socialist Government’s joke report on the economics of climate change (not a climate scientist); and the Environment Minister of Spain (not a climate scientist).

All four of us--three climate scientists and I (not a climate scientist) accepted the invitation to debate. All four of them refused. They said they would only come if they could speak on their own, without facing any challenge, any debate, any question, any fact, any inconvenient truth. Not one of them dared to face us. They did not have what in English we should call the cojones.

There was no climate crisis. There is no climate crisis. There will be no climate crisis. “Global warming” is not a global crisis. It is a global scientific fraud.

Without you, that blunt truth might have taken far longer to emerge than it has. And delay is fatal. Though lies cannot alter or harm the truth, they can kill our fellow men. The environmental movement is out of control. It is now humankind’s deadliest enemy. In the name of humanity, it must be outlawed. Thirty years ago, the soi-disant “Greens” agitated for DDT to be banned. They killed 40 million people of malaria, most of them children. Eventually, after a third of a century, the WHO at last caved in to humanitarian pressure from me and others and reversed the ban. Dr. Arata Kochi, announcing the end of that murderous ban, said, “Usually in this field politics comes first and science second. Now we must take a stand on the science and the data.” That is what you in this room have so gallantly done. You have taken a stand on the science and the data.

Now the very same soi-disant “Greens” are killing millions by starvation in a dozen of the world’s poorest regions. Their biofuel scam, a nasty by-product of their shoddy, senseless, failed, falsified, fraudulent “global warming” bugaboo, has turned millions of acres of agricultural land from growing food for humans to growing fuel for automobiles. If we let them, they will carelessly kill tens of millions more by pursuing Osamabamarama’s stated ambition of shutting down nine-tenths of the economies of the West and flinging us back to the Stone Age without even the right to light fires in our caves.

The prosperity of the West is not only our sustenance. It is also the very lifeblood of the struggling nations of the Third World. If our economies fail, we are inconvenienced, but they die.

In the past year there have been food riots in a dozen major regions, in protest at the doubling of the price of staple food which the World Bank blames almost entirely on the biofuel scam. Has your favourite news medium reported the riots and the mass starvation? Probably not. Has it given our starving fellow-men--our brothers and sisters--the same attention and prominence and column inches and frequency of coverage as it has given to every icicle putatively dribbling in Greenland? Certainly not.

Those who are dying are only black people, poor people, in far-away countries of which we know little, with no voice and no vote. Why should we care? Well, we should care. And we--you and I--we do care. In this debate it is we who hold the moral high ground.

There is no incompatibility between science and religion, as long as religion does not attempt to usurp the realm of science, and as long as science does not become a religion. So I hope that this scientific conference will forgive a Christian if, in a Christian country founded by Christians, he does his duty as the valedictorian by sending you away from this great gathering with a blessing--a blessing that has been spoken in the stone-built village churches of England for longer than anyone can remember. Let it be a tribute to your steadfast courage.

“Go forth into the world in peace;“Be of good courage;“Hold fast to that which is good;“Render to no man evil for evil;“Strengthen the faint-hearted;“Support the weak;“Help the afflicted;“Honour all men;“Love and serve the Lord,“Rejoicing in the power of the Holy Ghost;

“And the blessing of God Almighty,“The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost,“Be upon you and remain with you always. Amen.”

Lord Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute. He has held positions with the British press and in government, as a press officer at the Conservative Central Office and as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s policy advisor. Monckton advised Thatcher on technical issues such as warship hydrodynamics, psephological modeling; embryological research, hydrogeology, public-service investment analysis, public welfare modeling, and epidemiological analysis. He currently is a consultant giving technical advice to corporations and governments. He has been active in the debate over global warming, publishing articles critical of prevailing climate change opinions and chastising U.S. Senators John Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe when they wrote a letter to the chief executive officer of ExxonMobil asking him to stop funding scientists who reject global warming, In February 2007, he published an analysis and summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes’s Fourth Assessment Report.

October, 2009

Lord Monckton has found another way to "shamelessly" take advantage of his inherited title by thrusting himself into the position of being a 'defender of American democracy'. He relies on building straw man arguments while he appeals to the emotions of the American people.

What is he saying now?

World Government; Communism, Global Climate Treaty; Transfer or Redistribution of Wealth; Climate Debt; CO2 less than 1/6 than IPCC estimates (Lindzen). He claims President Obama said during his election campaign that the US Constitution is only a piece of paper (one might think that that would have come up during the election campaign though?). Actually this sounds like a rehash of the rumor that President Bush said the constitution was 'just a piece of paper' in 2005. Monckton has merely replaced the name Bush with Obama. The degree of chicanery in Moncktons remarks remains high.

Essentially, he is making a false argument. Monckton states:

"What they're now going to do is to set up a world government and the word government actually appears in the treaty. But, you heard it hear first, the word election, democracy, vote, or ballot, does not appear anywhere in the 200 pages of the treaty. It's going to be a dictatorship."

and

"What we are talking about is a fledgling world government and because it's not elected, it's essentially a communist world government."

A veritable litany of error and contextual misrepresentation (see spin here & here). First the document he is referring to is a 'draft document'. It is trying to set up governance (administration) for the treaty (and yes, governments will need to be involved in the treaty). Without governance, how can the treaty be enforced (without enforcement, why make a treaty)? Second, it is unlikely it will be signed this year anyway, based on all that we are hearing about how things are going with COP15.

Monckton is making the rounds on CNN, Glenn Beck, etc. He has figured out how to get the spotlight to shine on himself and will hold on to that as long as he can.

Simply put, Monckton, and others that are delaying action, are making money and gaining fame, at the expense of everyone on the planet.

A global treaty is needed to begin to address global warming in a meaningful manner. The majority of studies indicates that climate may be more sensitive that models are prediction. Without a treaty, democracy itself will ultimately fail. History has shown repeatedly, that when resources get scarce, democracy suffers.

If the goal is to protect democracy, then we need to rapidly address global warming mitigation and adaptation issues.

Monckton thinks short-term, in the sense that if he were not inflammatory on the issue, he would not be making money talking about it, and he would not get to appear on national television. We, the people will need to be less emotional about the issue and more realistic. Increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases from industrial sources are affecting the climate. Inaction will ultimately destroy the world economy. How fast? It begins now.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown, October 19, 2009:

...in just 25 years the glaciers in the Himalayas, which provide water for 3/4 of a billion people could disappear entirely. IPCC estimates tell us now, that by 2080, an extra 1.8 billion people, equal to a quarter of the worlds current population, could be living and dying without enough water.

Main Entry: jus·tice

1 a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b:judgec: the administration of law; especially: the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity2 a: the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1): the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2): conformity to this principle or ideal :righteousnessc: the quality of conforming to law3: conformity to truth, fact, or reason :correctness

Climate Debt

To not address climate debt is to support the notion that Democracies do not support justice or fairness, which is the foundation, or basis, for democracy itself. America itself was founded on certain principles including justice, liberty, fairness. If we abandon the founding principles of fairness, freedom and justice, on what basis can one claim to be American, or a lover of democracy and freedom, on what principle? Or are we to abandon these principles?

America, and the western world, has emitted or been responsible for the emission of the majority of greenhouse gas emissions. Those that will suffer first, and most, in the beginning, live in countries that have only emitted 8% or less of global emissions. On what basis can those responsible for the largest amount of emissions claim no responsibility for the result of that emission?

Responsibly addressing climate debt is important and at the same time, in doing so it is important to ensure that we are addressing all issues simultaneously. Economic viability of the overall system and that we do not allow such 'payment' to add to the problem of global warming but rather that all solutions bring us closer to mitigating the cause, that of human caused global warming.

This in no way is to say that we can or should shirk responsibility, but that we must quickly address needed solutions as well as the justice issues that present themselves in the world we have now created.

Summary

Monckton is playing to the crowd and he has an audience. He is taking it a bit far though. When his spin of the message goes so far out into unsupportable claims, eventually, his words will be ignored. In the mean time, he knows he has found a spotlight that he can make sure shines on him, so it is doubtful he will let that go easily. He remains inconsiderate of the larger issues, that of responsibility, accountability and moving toward meaningful mitigation and adaptation.

June, 2009

His June, 2009 foray into the debate, addressing a question from Rush Limbaugh, can be found here: on the Science and Public Policy web site (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org).

For the sake of news integrity and redundancy in the event the link is moved or deleted we provide a copy of the linked document here.

Le't s take a look at just how irrelevant Lord Monckton's opinion on Global Warming and Climate Change is:

What Monckton says: "What the media aren't telling you about the real climate"

What Monckton says: "Sea level has stopped rising: UN wrong again

Note: Moncktons chart is actually stretched horizontally in order to give the impression that the trend he is referring to is visually more flat. It is of course an illusory technique. To think that Lord Monckton is anything close to scientific in his representations is reasonably considered an absurd assumption.

The Real Chart:

When one applies Lord Monckton's methodology to the chart, one can see that sea level rise has stopped many times during it's rise. Again, short term variability is weather, long term trend is climate. Monckton's representations are clearly deceptive.

Not only is sea level continuing to rise, it is beyond the upper bounds of the IPCC estimate, which as pointed out in the January, 2009 Sea Level Rise report, is in line with expected estimates of faster SLR. These indicators are important to pay attention to.

What Monckton says: "Five years' ocean cooling: UN wrong again"

What Monckton says: "Arctic sea-ice extent: an 8 year record high"

Monckton again gets it all wrong. He uses the IARC-JAXA chart which shows an overlay of multiple years of ice extent growth and recession. He does not show the actual ice extent trend. One might suspect that he did ont want to show the actual ice extent trend as it did not support his apparent thesis. The below ice extent chart shows the ice extent trend as understood by the science. You can judge for yourself it there is an 8 year record high?

Figure 3. Monthly July ice extent for 1979 to 2010 shows a decline of 6.4% per decade.

What Monckton Says: "Global sea-ice extent: a regular heartbeat."

Facts out of context and just another straw man argument. Monckton shows global sea ice extent (north/south pole combined), which seems stable. Again ice extent is not as relevant as ice mass. This graph actually has no relevance to the point of the argument. We already know that ice extent is diminishing in the Arctic, and increasing in Antarctica, so they 'seem' to cancel each other out. But in reality, the two separate ice extent measurements help confirm global warming.

This is not evident in a combined graph. This is another great example of using facts out of context. Monckton is relying on the visual image which might trick people into thinking he is right.

Perspective: Warming oceans add moisture to the atmosphere and that is, and was, expected to increase ice extent in Antarctica with increased snow due to increased water evaporation due to warmer oceans. Antarctic ice calving has increased and is now said to be contributing about half of the sea level rise in relation to the Greenland ice calving rate.